Anarchism, Ethics and Justice: The Michael Schmidt Case

Anarkismo network framework for international Ethics Commission and statement on convening it

When we have to deal with disagreements, conflicts and faults, these problems must be solved with a justice that is based on our libertarian ethical values. What does this concretely mean? That we have to hear all the parties involved and make sure to provide physical and psychological protection too all, especially if someone has – at least presumably – been hurt. In cases of sexual violence – for instance – we should not reproduce the bias of bourgeois patriarchal so-called “justice” that too frequently isolates (female) survivors and dismisses their feelings and words. It means that we have to establish means to examine the different positions and eliminate any doubts. That we have to have democratic and collective processes to deal with that and to take decisions and make recommendations. And, mainly, that we must first try to reeducate people instead of punishing or isolating them. Not that in some cases punishment or isolation couldn’t be the only solution, but, at least, we have to make (re)education a priority over punishment and isolation, which should be last resorts.

To deal with these problems within our movement instances of ethical justice that aim to resolve major disagreements, conflicts and faults are necessary. These instance, such as an “ethics commission” for example, could be convened and articulated whenever one or more militants within our movement or organizations identify a problem of this kind and ask formally for the establishment of a commission. The establishment of a commission (or the denial) would be the result of a collective decision made by the deliberative and decision-making bodies of the respective organizations. If a commission is established, then a certain number of militants not involved with the case could be mandated to constitute the commission and be given a deadline to listen to the different parties involved, to develop positions, eliminate doubts and then to produce a written document with a position and recommendations to the respective organization.
To “solve the problem” means, here, to find ways to reach agreements, to find solutions to conflicts, to deal with faults and to eliminate doubts. Although giving preference to (re)education, the commission could decide for issuing a warning, suspension, sanction or even expulsion or "excommunication".

ANARCHISM, ETHICS AND JUSTICE: THE MICHAEL SCHMIDT CASE
Anarkismo network framework for international Ethics Commission and statement on convening it

This document sets out a framework for the international and independent “commission of inquiry”, or ethics commission, which the Anarkismo network said it would convene – in the September 30, 2015 “Statement from Anarkismo on the AK Press accusation against Michael Schmidt” (http://anarkismo.net/article/28576) – to deal with the Michael Schmidt case; as well as to set a new precedent and collectively delineate some general guidelines on how, as a movement, to deal with other similar cases in the future.

As we said in our “Statement on the Schmidt Case and proposed Commission of Inquiry” in March 2017 (https://www.anarkismo.net/article/30115), “Developing proposals for a framework and criteria of ethics and justice for the commission, translating, circulating, discussing in our organisations, submitting and incorporating feedback in as participatory and democratic a manner as possible has taken much time and energy, which we have had to balance with the many other demands and commitments of our organisations and struggles”. The process was more complicated and took longer than we thought and before all the organisations that comprise the Anarkismo network could discuss the proposed framework internally and reach a decision we were “informed by our comrades at the Institute for Anarchist Theory and History (ITHA-IATH) that they had received a letter from Michael Schmidt in which he confessed to having been influenced by right-wing positions and racist arguments while maintaining his ‘anarchist’ public persona and relations with the left”.

We reiterate now what we said then that, “We fully reject and distance ourselves from any and all of the racist and reactionary statements, ideas or activities Schmidt is responsible for – regardless of their alleged motivations […]” and that “we have decided to cut all ties and not to have future relations with Michael Schmidt”.

“These new developments not withstanding”, however, we are still of the opinion that “the proposed commission of inquiry has a necessary and important role to play and we will continue to pursue it. There are several important reasons for this. While at least some of the accusations against Schmidt have been proven to be true by his own admission, we noted […] that the methods of the accusers ‘raised an internal debate about how we deal with such situations'; that we ‘cannot ignore that the methods used by the accusers – especially the lack of a criteria for minimum of justice – could be used one day in an unjustified accusation against any one of us in order to defame a militant, an organisation or a whole movement’, and that; ‘the way we deal with the current situation will have consequences for similar situations in the future’ […] The purpose of this commission, as before, will be to analyse the whole case, including Schmidt’s partial confession and give a final verdict – taking into consideration the now known fact that we have no doubt he adopted rightwing positions concomitant to his anarchist ones – particularly as regards relations to him from now on as well as developing some general procedure on how to treat similar cases in the future.”

The proposed commission is not intended to decide or pronounce on whether Schmidt or anyone else involved in or implicated by the case is anarchist or not. It is not about punishing or exonerating anyone. It is about breaking the mentality within the anarchist movement of “giving medals to who is really an anarchist”, or to who exposes someone as not being an anarchist. It is about establishing whether people’s conduct and the way it has been dealt with generally have been constructive, consistent with anarchist values and principles and congruent with our vision of non-hierarchical social transformation. It is about setting a precedent and drawing lessons from the experience to help us as a movement deal with similar cases in the future in a mature and constructive way consistent with our goals and principles.

This framework has been sent to various organizations, listed below, inviting them to delegate a member to represent their organization on the proposed commission – as well as to two independent anarchist comrades also inviting them to participate in the commission. We are giving all of them one month from the date the invitation was sent, [20.06.2017], to accept or decline the invitation and, if they accept it, to supply the name of their delegate so that we can convene the commission – and finally be able to put this unpleasant episode behind us, learn from the experience and get on with the important work of building a revolutionary movement against capitalism and the state.

Anarchism, ethics and justice

As we know, anarchism has emerged and developed through a process of mutual influence involving workers/popular movements and some thinkers. Based on its almost 150 years of history, it’s possible to establish which principles are generally common to anarchists and syndicalists of all tendencies.

Among these principles[1], there is one that could be called “ethics and values” and conceptualized as “the defense of an ethical conception, capable of supporting rational critiques and propositions, and based on the following values: individual and collective freedom; equality in economic, political and social terms; solidarity and mutual aid; permanent stimulus to happiness, motivation and will”. All these values could be discussed in hundreds of pages, but as revolutionary anarchists and syndicalists, we probably have a more or less common view on them.

The relevant point here is that anarchism has historically developed a whole body of conceptions which have directed anarchist critiques, propositions, conduct, opinions/judgments and so on. Independent of how the anarchists themselves defined these conceptions – ie: Bakunin talked on the need for a “new social philosophy, a “new faith”, and Kropotkin on the need for a “new ethics” – there is no doubt when studying the history of anarchism that something like this can be extracted from it.

These anarchist conceptions of ethics and values forged the moral elements necessary to the argument that exploitation, political-bureaucratic domination, physical coercion, cultural alienation, class society and national/gender/race domination should be destroyed; and that the socialization of property, democratic self-government, self-managed culture, classless society and the end of domination at all levels should be constructed. In sum, they enable us to judge society in general. What anarchists consider ethically right or wrong, good or bad, has been based on these conceptions.

So, in this an anarchist sense, ethics could be defined as the libertarian moral values that direct our critiques and propositions and that guide our conduct and opinions/judgments. In this same sense, justice could be defined as the realization of ethics. Something is considered just/fair if it’s ethical; something is considered unjust/unfair if it’s unethical.

It’s sure that ethics and justice, as concepts, as almost every concept (socialism, freedom, democracy, power and so on), could be defined in other ways or even criticized. However, surely here we are not talking about bourgeois justice or even some metaphysic human ethics or hegemonic morals.

As the general lines of the future society anarchists intend to build are much better than the ones of the society we currently live in, so too are our conceptions of ethics and justice. Since Bakunin, we anarchists have promoted working with a prefigurative politics. Our purpose is not to create a small and perfect society isolated from the rest of society, as some former cooperativists proposed and as some others propose today. Our aim is to transform the society in which we live, and this obviously implies contradictions since it’s not possible to establish completely new social relations while living under capitalism, the state and so on. Despite this, we support prefigurative politics in the sense that we have to define our final objectives (where we would like to arrive) and, proceeding from where we are now, to develop a coherent strategy to advance towards our aims.

Concerning ethics and justice, it’s necessary, as it’s possible, to work prefiguratively in our groups, organizations and movements. Not only with the libertarian values we predict for the future, but also with the established rules and norms guided by these values. We also think that all the rules and norms have to be decided collectively and freely accepted.

Yet, disagreements, conflicts and faults surely will arise. No doubt that in a future society they will certainly decrease a lot with the social relations, institutions and so on having been completely transformed. But even then, problems and contradictions will emerge in society. Not to mention in our groups, organizations and movements. Following from our prefigurative politics, our mechanisms of justice have to solve these problems according to our ethical conceptions, or, in other words, in a fair libertarian way. Let’s just remember that our justice must be better (or much better) than the so-called justice we have in the liberal capitalist states around the world.

When we have to deal with disagreements, conflicts and faults, these problems must be solved with a justice that is based on our libertarian ethical values. What does this concretely mean? That we have to hear all the parties involved and make sure to provide physical and psychological protection to all, especially if someone has – at least presumably – been hurt. In cases of sexual violence – for instance – we should not reproduce the bias of bourgeois patriarchal so-called “justice” that too frequently isolates (female) survivors and dismisses their feelings and words. It means that we have to establish means to examine the different positions and eliminate any doubts. That we have to have democratic and collective processes to deal with that and to take decisions and make recommendations. And, mainly, that we must first try to reeducate people instead of punishing or isolating them. Not that in some cases punishment or isolation couldn’t be the only solution, but, at least, we have to make (re)education a priority over punishment and isolation, which should be last resorts.

To deal with these problems within our movement instances of ethical justice that aim to resolve major disagreements, conflicts and faults are necessary. These instance, such as an “ethics commission” for example, could be convened and articulated whenever one or more militants within our movement or organizations identify a problem of this kind and ask formally for the establishment of a commission. The establishment of a commission (or the denial) would be the result of a collective decision made by the deliberative and decision-making bodies of the respective organizations. If a commission is established, then a certain number of militants not involved with the case could be mandated to constitute the commission and be given a deadline to listen to the different parties involved, to develop positions, eliminate doubts and then to produce a written document with a position and recommendations to the respective organization.

To “solve the problem” means, here, to find ways to reach agreements, to find solutions to conflicts, to deal with faults and to eliminate doubts. Although giving preference to (re)education, the commission could decide for issuing a warning, suspension, sanction or even expulsion or "excommunication".

The Schmidt case

What we have with the Michael Schmidt case is, in some way, similar to that. Basically, taking the anarchist and syndicalist milieu as a “movement”, what we have is a sector making an accusation against one member, and what the Anarkismo network decided to do is to call for the establishment of an “Ethics Commission” to deal with the case. So, what do we have to do with the commission? We have to judge Schmidt, based on the ethics and values we have in common as revolutionary anarchists and syndicalists while trying to think in a prefigurative way. Sure this is abstract in some way, but taking into account that the anarchist milieu doesn't have common organizational documents, it’s the only way possible to do that.

First, we have to establish to what extent he contravened the informal rules and norms we have as revolutionary anarchists and syndicalists . Or, we have to deal with Schmidt’s admitted fault or, at least, to deal with the conflict that the accusations against him implied. For this, it will be necessary: to read the accusation pieces, his defense pieces, his (partial) admission in his letter to ITHA and the main documents on the case[2] ; to talk to the parties implicated and to source and examine any other relevant documents and information[3], in order to deepen our knowledge and/or to eliminate doubts. In evaluating evidence, the commission will have to a) Compile a list of accusations made against Schmidt; b) Compile a list of defenses made by Schmidt; c) Compile a list of admissions and partial admissions made by Schmidt; d) Evaluate these against the evidence / source material / original materials that have been cited, as well as against the claims made in the texts of accusers and accused[4]. It will also be necessary to reach a common position on what (more or less exactly) he did that we consider a fault. It would be important to justify why and in which measure this fault is a contravention against our ethical values, our informal rules and norms. It would also be important to put a degree on this fault: small, medium, serious, extremely serious and to classify it as “probably tractable” or “probably not tractable”. It will also be necessary to evaluate and pass judgement on the truthfulness and validity of Schmidt’s claims that he “was never entirely convinced by the racist right or the ‘national-anarchists’”, that he has “since recovered” his “unity of mind” and that he remains “a committed revolutionary anarchist, and as such a firm anti-fascist and anti-racist”.

Second, and probably more difficult, we have to decide what to do, or, to make a recommendation to people on what to do. There are at least 3 possible positions that could emerge: 1.) What Schmidt did is completely forgivable and he will be allowed to participate in anarchist projects, groups and organizations, to publish on our presses and websites etc. as before. Or, our relation to him will continue in the same way. 2.) What he did is forgivable IF something happens or some conditions are met. Here it could be recommended, for example, that Schmidt make some kind of past self-criticism, release a public statement acknowledging and recognizing his mistakes, etc. Or maybe that he make some commitments regarding the future. Or maybe some kind of temporary penalty could be imposed: for example, a certain number of months/years out of our means etc. Here, it’s important to say that willingness and disposition on his part to accept and meet the stipulated conditions is mandatory for his forgiveness. 3.) What he did is completely unforgivable and probably impossible to treat/fix. And then all formal/political anarchist and syndicalist relations with him should be cut completely. Maybe, it could also be recommended what to do concerning his publications, research, books etc. and what kind of relations anarchists and syndicalists should / should not have with him: political, academic, publishing, social, none whatsoever, etc.

Third, if it decided it necessary or useful, the commission could develop a position on the case it-self. The way it was handled by the international anarchist and syndicalist milieu, including Anarkismo, ZACF, Reid Ross and Stephens, Schmidt, van der Walt, AK Press, the anonymous sources etc.

Concerning the decision-making method, the commission could really try to reach agreements by consensus. But, if it’s not possible, we recommend voting, with the simple majority winning and the main disagreements and positions being documented in the commission’s final public report.

We propose that the commission should produce a final report with: 1.) A synthesis on what Schmidt really (or probably) did; 2.) An outline of how the commission carried out its task and a justified position of how the commission judged the case (in terms of ethical conceptions etc.); 3.) A recommendation on what to do with Schmidt based on a) the different possible levels of contravention of anarchist and syndicalist norms and values, and b) a judgement on Schmidt’s claims that he has emerged from “that dark period”, has returned to sanity and renewed his commitment to anarchism; 4.) If necessary, a general judgment on the whole process of the case (i.e. how the anarchist and syndicalist milieu handled it) and; 5.) General guidelines and recommendations on how to handle similar cases in the future.

In order for it to have legitimacy it is important that the commission is balanced and made up of delegates from the organizations representing the main traditions within class struggle anarchism and syndicalism , as well as independent anarchists. To ensure that the process does not drag on for too long and to facilitate voting, where consensus is not achieved, we recommend that the commission is not too big and that it consist of an odd number of members. We propose the commission comprise seven people but, in the event that some organizations or individuals decline the invitation, suggest it be made up of at least three of the networks, organizations and individuals (we will publish information on the individuals once the organizations below have also made proposals) proposed below to be viable:

1) The organizations of the november 2016 Bilbao's Conference[5]
2) International of Anarchist Federations (IAF-IFA)
3) Industrial Workers of the World (IWW)
4) Anarkismo network
5) Red and Black Coordination (if unactive, we will contact CGT-E)

We feel it is important that nobody who has publicly taken a position either in defense of or against Schmidt should be part of the commission as this will undermine its impartiality, and therefore have asked the organizations we invited onto the commission not to delegate members who have publicly expressed opinions or positions on Schmidt's innocence or guilt.

Using this document as the basis for a common framework on the tasks of the commission and the anarchist conceptions of ethics and justice and prefigurative politics that should guide the commission, the commission itself will be responsible for deciding on its approach, identifying and dividing tasks, setting timeframes – based on the availability and capacity of commission members – and carrying out its work until such time as it has made its final judgment and released its final report and recommendations to the anarchist and syndicalist movement. After which the commission will be dissolved and it will be left up to the rest of the anarchist and syndicalist movement and milieu to accept its judgment and implement its recommendations or not and the case will be considered closed.

We will make another statement in one month time once we have received the decisions of the individuals and organizations we have invited.

The Anarkismo network

Notes

1. A list and conceptualization of these principles can be found in this article (translated into Spanish): http://www.anarkismo.net/article/26934.
2. The main documents are: The AK Press statement, the 5 Reid Ross and Stephens texts; Schmidt's 2 responses; the 2 responses Reid Ross wrote after Schmidt's 2nd (long) response; the ZACF public statement.; Schmidt’s resignation letter to ITHA; Lucien van der Walt's statement should also be taken into account, because he is an important part of this process.
3. Anarkismo will make available to the commission articles by Michael Schmidt that the Anarkismo editorial group decided not to publish. The ZACF has also said it will make available meeting minutes, internal documents and discussions relevant to the case. We suggest that all research done by Reid Ross and Stephens, including transcripts of interviews with sources, should be made available to the commission. We also ask that the sources Reid Ross and Stephens relied on for their research come forward and make themselves known to the commission (not necessarily the public) and avail themselves to answer questions.
4.This means building a table of claim(s) plus years these apply to, counterclaim(s) plus years these apply to, from all the core texts, then evaluation of the relative merits of the two (claim vs counterclaim) based on cited evidence. Then overall conclusions can be drawn. This is a very simple, systematic concrete approach. It could otherwise easily end up a discussion that goes in circles. It will also pick up issues that are dodged e.g. claims that are not rebutted, and counterclaims not answered, and allow identification of weak or unsubstantiated claims/ counterclaims.
5. We have changed the appelation ""Renovated" International Workers Association" with "The organizations of the november 2016 Bilbao's Conference". It was not our intention to be provocative or to offend anyone. We apology for our lack of sensibility on that matter.

RSS and atom feeds allow you to keep track of new comments on particular stories. You can input the URL's from these links into a rss reader and you will be informed whenever somebody posts a new comment. hide help

Those organizations the network is seeking to have on a commission reflect a certain political view, making it subject to a certain non-objectivity. Also the implication that anyone not affiliated with the listed organizations,are marginal or hostile. I am not offended that the organization I belong to is not invited to participate, for I would vote against our participation.

The anarkismo network, many of you who I have liked and have worked should really have the fortitude to sit in judgement on your own former member. Now its suggested that others own what really is an internal network matter in some ways. MS is not the property of the movement, was never a "leader" or elected spokesperson in your tendency (other than a then respected author).

Perhaps there are greater things here that I am missing. But MS made grave and serious errors, fooled people, harmed his co-author's reputation, embarrassed your international tendency and the local organization specifically and somehow a commission of a selected portion of the movement will now act to protect the reputation of the tendency and, basically, validating what the Institute for Anarchist Theory and History (ITHA-IATH) has already laid out and, essentially, endorsed by the network.

Ethics are pretty simple: You don't lie, you don't fool your comrades and act in ways harmful to the organization and the movement.

In spite of my own political disagreements with the views of some in your network,I am sorry that your tendency has had to endure the negativity that a former tendency
member and noted author brought upon it. Sadly, no tendency or organization is immune from the possibilities of a member or members going astray and into some verboten
areas. In this regard, no one should say its because of any ideological deficiencies of your tendency. But it is also a shame that your tendency has to find cover behind the findings of others rather than endorse the findings or develop your own parallel the findings of the Institute for Anarchist Theory and History (ITHA-IATH).

I suspect this will not be well received and expect incoming fire. It is said from someone who understands the frustrations of rogue members. Of having your principles questioned.
But sometimes ya just gotta say what ya feel and let the chips fall where they may.

I think, that it is absolutely necessary for the commission or at least for zwo or three members of the commission (if the commission wants to be a serious commission) to travel to South Africa and to question and to talk with Michael and all available witnesses personally.

Furthermore the members of the commission need to have a special knowledge: at least a basic knowledge of psychology and even of forensic psychology.

The main question, I think, is: Did Michael really change? Did he really abjured outwardly (and on all the main social platforms) and inwardly all that nazi-shit? Does he really remains “a committed revolutionary anarchist, and as such a firm anti-fascist and anti-racist”?

__________

And / but / don't you think:

"Ethics are pretty simple: You don't lie, you don't fool your comrades and act in ways harmful to the organization and the movement." Mike Harris ( - with some other important points)

Within the past two years it has been near impossible to convince some people and organizations of the blindingly obvious fascism, racism, sexism, homophobia etc etc etc displayed by Michael Schmidt in his personas as strandwolf, karelianblue, ardent vinlander, feyd saif'ulisaan and francois le sueur. Those trying desperately to point out the obvious have been verbally/digitally attacked and threatened personally and professionally, when there are mountains of evidence that goes well beyond just the Ross-Stephens articles.

Outside of these clique groups (mostly platformist), some of which are forming this commission, there's no controversy. Arts Everywhere pulled Schmidt's article that was oh-so-sad about "the rise of right-populism and neo-fascism" as soon as they saw the blatant fascism, racism, years of lies and deceit -

Others it seems are trying to salvage Black Flame Part 2 which Schmidt promises to write alone as his coauthor (and former online defender as alias redblackwritings) Lucien Vanderwalt has finally denounced him publicly and even leaked Schmidt's admittance of far-right politics.

What more is there to say?

If this comission keeps alive the fact that Schmidt is a racist bigot and keeps his trangressions in the public eye, or at least in left circles, then that's good. So I applaud it for that reason, so that other groups like Arts Everywhere don't accidently fall in with a far-right racist infiltrator [an admitted one!]

Anarkismo must eventually face its own disgusting coverup and damage control for Schmidt. They should start by admitting that they have been censoring all comment sections in Anarkismo.net if you are too critical of Schmidt in the "wrong direction" for the "objective" network. Plenty of evidence of that in the web archive.org or archive.is and in libcom threads.

Worse, don't even try to criticize the ZACF statement that blamed the people who outed Schmidt and not Schmidt himself. Can't wait to see the new ZACF statement on the statement of the comission in 2020 or so, probably ghostwritten by Lucien Vanderwalt under a new alias that's not so obvious as redblackwritings.

Well anyway maybe Schmidt will try and put a stop to this commision, which I again applaud because it will put the spotlight back on his fascist activities [which continue? we need a few good people willing to delve into the deep shit of Stormfront again and see if Schmidt's hand is caught in the Boer white-nationalist cookie jar again]. Schmidt must recognize that the more statements like this come out the worse he will look even if his defenders are really really trying to defend his future tome Black Flame 2, the solo edition.

Schmidt's currently in pretty serious isolation and he's been kicked out of all orgs hes associated with [and most of the groups he's founded are dissolved]. His resume/blog is a current joke with all the *former asterisks by former comrades he's lied to, hurt, embarrassed.

All of this isolation is seemingly fostering Schmidts move into streamofconsciousness writing and remixing of all his creative output, even drawings and photos and paintings. Maybe like past fascist sympathizers during the rise of the Third Reich we can try to appreciate him for the tortured soul expressed through his art.

Schmidt has promised half a dozen books this year alone so who knows what will happen with his output, but any person or group treating him like an accepted anarchist historian [let alone backing Black Flame part II] should raise alarm bells.

He's done. Get over it and don't waste our time. His defenders should muster up the courage for apologies if you can get past your egos. Those that cant will waste time on this commission I guess.

I am already starting to see a disturbing trend resurface, where the very people who exposed the bigotry of Michael "Strandwolf" Schmidt are being criticized as racists, seemingly because they didn't do an in-depth analysis of the ZACF and interview every member. We'll see if there's any similar standard here with this commission, but I bet they won't even interview Schmidt, which is crucial if they're serious about the methods they purport above (an insane waste of energy, as it were).

I'm reminded of my comments from last year, when Schmidt's public exposure as a white nationalist organizer was already nearly a year old. Those who knew about him privately holding these beliefs and engaging in these activities, for perhaps a decade, are what concern me. Substitute Anarkismo for ZACF if you'd like, below.

The ZACF lost their ability to frame the debate and the way an investigation would be conducted when they refused to acknowledge Michael Schmidt's racist and fascist views in 2011, if not much earlier. Instead, the main evidence of his racism and fascism that they cite as inexcusable, the so-called "Strandwolf Creed", was kept online for 4-5 years for all to see (including budding young White Power fascists). ZACF knew about it in 2011 (if not earlier), and could have handled it then, however they sought fit in the South African racial context. When they decided not to confront the issue at all, they lost all credibility to complain about how any subsequent investigation into Schmidt would occur. This is doubly reinforced by the fact that all of the corroborating evidence about Schmidt's fascism was readily available on the Web, and an afternoon of Googling away.

Clearly, there were uncomfortable truths that were either passively dismissed, or purposefully covered up. If the ZACF wanted to decide the matter on their own terms, with a commission or whatever structure they sought fit, they missed the boat by HALF A DECADE.

Now, as Schmidt apologists such as "J" make clear, this conversation is descending into deplorable territory, where those who exposed Schmidt and opened up the conversation (ARR/JS, AK Press, and the Web commentators who did research into Schmidt and leaks) are considered anti-black racists. Beyond that, it's even proposed that they don't understand white racism or white identity, and perhaps misunderstand Schmidt's calls for a Boer homeland carved out of the Western Cape and Namibia. The assumption that anonymous commentators are white Americans is even more deplorable, and exposes these posts as garbage, intended to bring identity politics to the forefront of the issue.

Also I am now backing up this comment since there has definitely been Anarkismo censorship of comments in the past.

First, if an investigation is ever to be done, it should be done in a timely manner. The long wait and some antics in-between (like LVdW troll account to support MS) has lead a lot of people to suspect this was something that people did not want to deal with or that some people were in denial and too afraid to stake their reputations on the line.

What needs to be done, is to make a close examination of where racist and even fascist ideas can be smuggled past anarchists and to learn from this.

Another thing which we all need is more reflection on how various problematic ideas and behaviour is enabled in the anarchist movement by tendencies to put the problem on those pointing it out, rather than confronting it head-on. Needless to say, people in positions of some "authority" are usually not held to the standards they should be.

I agree with the sentiments of Mike Harris above and you would do well to heed his advice. You won't.

You lost control of this whole thing and this is an attempt to make others clean your mess, perhaps "rehabilitate" Strandwolf Karelianblue Schmidt. This is damage control of the worse kind and I can say neither me or the Wobblies I know won't be helping you out.

At worst it looks like you may be trying to out the anonymous sources. Who the fuck cares who they are, you have the evidence. There should be ZERO trust that Anarkismo will keep source identity confidential, especially given past leaked statements and the general dysfunction. Thats before I mention that LVdW just leaked the ITHA-IATH letter where Schmidt confesses to his love affair with fascism, or that LVdW went undercover in the dumbest way possible in Reddit and Libcom forums to defend his buddy and was exposed.

Anarkismo only even began to take up this issue again in the past few months with your weak statements because of the action of outside people and groups. That coincided with the snail's pace of your action nicely,, of course, and correlates well with the years of ZACF inaction over Schmidt and the notorious "blacks better follow white orders" memo and meetings.

If anything has been learned from this "case" or "affair" it's that platformists are worse than a cartoon pastiche when confronted with a minor problem. Everyone will say "don't knock platformists over this" but that is the tendency that tells everyone else that they know how to act and act well, betetr than all those "amateurs and little a anarchists" with all kinds of supposedly better strategies and protocols. Worse, platformists spend considerable time and energy scrutinizing the success or failure of other movements, analyzing and reanalyzing in the most verbose and tedious manner, ideologically categorizing them, and even rating them on their merit, proselytizing their success, or lamenting the damage they caused to "the historical Anarchist movement". Of course this is reflected on the history Black Flame and I can only assume this new sequel that "let's necklace the kaffirs" Schmidt is working on alone.

Yet, one covert fash in the mix and the whole thing is a embarrassing ordeal and an insurmountable task for "the platform" to boot him the fuck out. Cue thousands and thousands of words in statements that circle around the real issues and gloss over the actual content of the "case" (has there been a single piece of the actual evidence against Schmidt such as the Karelianblue posts discussed on/by Anarkismo network??)

I wish it was all a joke but it doesn't make me laugh. As Mike Harris warns above, many will share my anger.

All this "commission" will prove is that you can't take decisive action even when others have given you avenues to put this "case" behind you by already making clear and concise statements and presenting the evidence. Even if you crybabies don't appreciate the way it was presented and want to use this 'commission report" to take one last jab at ARR/JS and AK Press.

But let's not scrutinize platformists. Or Anarkismo, the largest and most well known modern network of them. No. Verboten.

right, glad to see these screenshots up again which had disappeared from the Net. Disgusting stuff. There's no doubt Schmidt was clearly white nationalist after reading it. This discussion has gotten so far from the evidence that we need to again focus on it.

Notable is his discussion of pride in his Nazi tattoo as important part of his heritage. A description of the other tatts along similar lines.

Something not often mentioned -- Schmidt was clearly trying to date and pick up neo-nazi women.

A few new screenshots in the collection as well, stuff not in the Ross-Stephens pieces.

I know it's not popular to point this out in Anarkismo forums but the simplest explanation here suffices. All these anointed 7 need do is read the evidence.. if they tell me MS isn't deeply invested in White Power, I know a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell them.

If you asked experienced antifa organizers to weigh in they'd tell you the difference between actual undercover work in nazi circles and MS White Power antics. Wait, some of them did! And bashed for "judging"! Conveniently excluded from polite Anarkismo.

Use some common sense. MS responses in past two years are more convoluted than the worst 9/11 conspiracies. He muddied the waters, buries excuses in long resumes, admitted to some of it so he doesn't have to admit to all of it and hides behind vague and mercurial health diagnoses. The man is obviously trying to salvage a career.. while he writes the next, cough, definitive anarchist history, you go find 7 fools to waste time on transformative justice.

Currently, in my city, we are in the middle of a farce of a government commission, which bears some things in common with this idea and can be pointed out as a warning to people. The government commission here has a "social council" which is meant to convince people that everything has been consulted with social activists. This council was appointed by the decision of the commission in such a way that they included politicians from their own party (including the chairman of the council) and mainly people who are not critical or somehow in a pact with that party. ln order to ensure that other people would not be delegated to this "social council", the organizations that these members supposedly represent were (with only one exception) not informed about the choices of members from their organizations and the chosen members were told not to tell anybody. Further, they have signed confidentiality clauses, meaning they cannot discuss their work and decisions with the organizations they represent. So yesterday one woman from one of those organizations came to our protest and was yelling at a member of the council from her organization (that nobody had delegated) to leave the said commission.

ln my opinion, those from this network are also using other organizations instrumentally, to try to legitimize their own inability to effectively deal with the situation. Having probably chosen organizations they have sympathizers in, or members, there is no indication that the actual organizations themselves would have to delegate members and approve the conclusions of their delegates. And, in fact, it would be rather unlikely that any organization with thousands of members would in fact do that, especially given the fact that some have weak tendencies in terms of their abilities to control delegated people.

This is therefore partly dishonest because instead of just soliciting individuals, the inclusion of named organizations will be manipulated in the revisionists' history to incline people to believe that this matter was dealt with by the "broad movement" when in fact, they propose it be decided by 7 individuals.

The way to deal with this in an organizational way would be for those who may or may not want to support such a commission to petition their organization (if it has been named), for a collective response, rather than an individual one. Then, if anybody does decide to participate, then at least it is with the approval and hopefully mandate of the organization and hopefully the conclusions will be subject to larger approval. The same if these organizations do not want to participate as such, then they should clearly indicate this to their membership, indicating that whatever people do in personal capacity remains as such.

Yes, Mousekitty, that is absolutely correct: "If you asked experienced antifa organizers to weigh in they'd tell you the difference between actual undercover work in nazi circles and MS White Power antics ... "

For sure MS was a NAZI - WE PROOFED IT. POINT! My theory is that he became a NAZI a long time before Karelian-Strandwolf - and Karelian-Strandwolf was just the point or phase of culmination (but that would be too much here).

So again: The main question NOW, I think, is: Did Michael really change? Did he really abjured outwardly (and on all the main social platforms) and inwardly all that NAZI-shit? Did he send honest excuses to the affected comrades and organizations? Does he really remains “a committed revolutionary anarchist, and as such a firm anti-fascist and anti-racist”?

And again: The commission have to meet MS and all the witnesses personally - otherwise it is NOT a commission!

AND: The commission should publish an e-mail address because me, and I am sure also other comrades, would like to send some confidential proposals regarding the procedure of the commission.

I forgot to say: A COMMISSION IS ABSOLUTELY NEEDED - for both sides - and the sooner the better. Without a serious commission and a judgement some people could justly always - inter alia - say: Well, still word against word.

And if a judgement will be passed by the commission without a personal hearing of MS and the witnesses (which takes for sure some days or even two or three weeks) ... oh, boy ... I don't want to think about the consequences and the angry commentaries.

As usual, Laure Akai brings sensible critiques to the table which will of course be roundly ignored.

This proposed commission, though some involved I'm sure have good intentions, is a triumph of bureaucratic process over ethical action (at best) and PR stunt, damage control, spreading out guilt (at worst). Mix in criticism of those who exposed Schmidt and some whining about the way they went about it.

Don't pretend Anarkismo speaks for a movement or drag anyone else into this. You could have put this whole thing behind you and gotten back to the real work at least a year ago, if not two.

To some, this whole affair will always be "word against word", there's no getting around it. Just make a strong principled statement reaffirming the IATH-ITHA statement and pull Schmidt's articles, like other groups have done.

Better yet, make sure to say that you don't endorse Schmidt's histories of anarchism, ask that others have a critical lens when reading them with Schmidt's duplicity in mind, and denounce "Wildfire" (the long proposed sequel to Black Flame known as "Global Fire - Counter Power part 2" for a long time). The actions of Schmidt, before and after being outed as white nationalist, certainly posit him as the wrong author for a sweeping international history of anarchism. I really hope everyone at Anarkismo can at least agree on that.

Anarkismo's reputation has been hurt, by the actions of both Black Flame authors. Lucien has apologized and made clear statements, two or three times now (though there is some clever dodging of fact and blurring of the timeline in those apologies). Anarkismo needs to lick its wounds and move on, but also not pretend that those wounds aren't real, or that there weren't a series of mistakes made (ratehr like a train wreck in veeeery slow motion).

So, regardless of whether there is a commission or not, MS will seemingly still publish on anarchism and related subjects.
I suspect there will be no anarchist publishers publishing their stuff, perhaps academic or commercial. Seeing the topics
they are writing on, there will probably be a market for them. A question will always be, how to deal with this new publishing
in the name of anarchism? Ultimately this is one of the real shames and pities of his traveling into and landing on the
verboten planet. A skilled and talented writer who manipulated others, who lied directly to his comrades, will tarnish
all of his reputation and good writings skills. Pity. But that's the card game he chose to play.

In reply to Mike Harris, I think Schmidt will get multiple anarchist histories published and translated, since he's been able to keep publishers in his camp. His output speed and range of his work, in multiple styles and mediums, impresses people and is good for business.

HSRC/Best Red is Schmidt's main publisher and they have a close relationship with ProJourn, where he is the Admin Secretary, and PEN South Africa, where Schmidt is a member and article contributor (showcasing his own work and activities).

These three groups have a lot invested in Schmidt and have stood by him after multiple people were directly contacted with the "Schmidt affair" statements, articles, and evidence. Even though his academic contacts at Duke University denounced him after finding out about Strandwolf/Karelianblue, it seems Schmidt may still be one of the ProJourn members traveling to their media conference in August, and he regularly represents journalists and refugees at other conferences and speaking events and on South African radio shows. And then there are video, music, and art projects Schmidt is a part of, usually with an anti-racist or even explicitly socialist or anarchist theme.

Schmidt just won ANFASA grant money for his "Death Flight" book. I assume it will be published on HSRC/Best Red.

His books sell well for them and are favorably reviewed, though they contain Boer-nationalist romanticism. "Bitter Almonds" was reviewed in The Sunday Times, South Africa's largest paper, with four-out-of-five stars. Deon Maas is translating "Bitter Almonds" into Afrikaans. Again I assume for HSRC/Best Red.

Schmidt: "With Black Flame already published in English and German and with Spanish and French in the pipeline, and Cartography already published in French and English, there are more translations on the horizon: discussions have been held over the translation of Black Flame into Chinese and Greek, with offers for Polish and Serbo-Croat received and debate about a possible Arabic edition; preparations are under way for the translation of Cartography into Spanish and Arabic, with offers for Portuguese, Farsi and Amazigh (Berber) received, and discussions begun on a possible Japanese edition; and meanwhile, I am looking at getting Drinking With Ghosts and A Taste of Bitter Almonds translated into Afrikaans and possibly Zulu or Tswana. So stay tuned to this blog for more news in the new year!"

Schmidt initially claimed that Lux Editeur had supported his version(s) of events, but then had to retract the statement.

Schmidt: "I've been asked to clarify that my Canadian publishers, Lux Editeur, have not taken a position for me and against my accusers, but have rather decided, after examining all the evidence on both sides, that although they have concerns about my past actions, they will not involve themselves in the debate, but will continue to distribute the French-language edition of Cartography of Revolutionary Anarchism. I apologise for misinterpreting their position. Meanwhile, I have just completed the extensive rewrite of Cartography (longer by 11,000 words) with the aim being its publication in Spanish, Portuguese, and Arabic."

Curiously, his work has been spread by nationalist/Zionist groups like the SAJBD, who have been contacted multiple times about his anti-semitism/fascism, with no response.

Also: Hi, Michael Schmidt! I know you're following this thread, as in the past. There are activists who have not forgotten or forgiven you. We see you hiding your bigotry behind a "gritty journalist" persona.

Mike Harris: "A question will always be, how to deal with this new publishing in the name of anarchism?"

MS is in quarantine now until we have a judgement of a commission. Is MS still a NAZI or not?, is he paying a double game or not? - until we don't have answers for these questions we can't read or buy anything of MS. We just can tell every publisher, organization and comrade that: MS is in quarantine now and that there is a pending "legal proceeding".

Commission is about closed door discussion for spin. How can we save our asses and our rep. How can we pretend we followed process. What the hell do we do with one of our prolific writers and his books. Etc.

attorney -- don't expect a spokesperson and input from the outside. if their reading this comments section they think we're all asshole trolls not worth listening.

The reference to Azef Affair is appropriate. Worth remembering that the people Azef fooled later described him as having a monstrous appearance, as a way for his comrades to somewhat absolve them of guilt ("I always knew he was bad apple" and so on). This commission report will serve a similar purpose? Perhaps a ineffective Court of Honor is a good idea here as well, allowing accused to escape.

But they have not only a transparency problem, IANAL, they have also (in general) a serious communication problem.

But the biggest mistake would be: not to call for proposals regarding the procedure of the commission - which can not be shared with the public. There are lot of experienced and wise comrades out there - and not asking for their opinions and advices would be ignorant and negligent.

lt is clear that when there are problems in some organization, there might have to be a commission of sorts to investigate and having been seen how this can work, you are correct, there should be a process (which should be transparent). I would suggest that the nice guys from Anarkismo network actually think about what this process could be, in the unfortunate case more of their nice people or associates turn out to be flirting with fascists or involved in other unspeakable behaviour.

However in this case, l personally do not think any commission is necessary. Everybody knows, by this time, what this guy was up to. In terms of “ethics” it seems that the most ethical thing would be to just let people decide what conclusions they want to draw from it, or how they would like to treat Mr. Schmidt.

Obviously, we could talk a lot about concepts of anarchist justice, but we could also talk about taking clear stands to distance ourselves from certain behaviour. It seems to me that a lot of folks think he has crossed a line and have no interest in the character. Anarkismo network should just decide for itself and take responsibility for its decisions, instead of looking for people who will help them to justify something.

What I suspect the worst thing about the whole matter is that this is not just some guy who was part of some group, but a person who wants to be one of the major historians, presenting a collective history to the world and being recognized as one of its spokespersons. Already, this activity was criticized by many different anarchists, for example, for its attempts to put various nationalists and so on into the anarchist history, but remove others which are not to the liking of this strain of anarchist. It seems to me that one of the main purposes of the attempts at rehabilitation are aimed at the continued project of revising anarchist history in the direction desired by this network.

What I suspect the worst thing about the whole matter is that this is not just some guy who was part of some group, but a person who wants to be one of the major historians, presenting a collective history to the world and being recognized as one of its spokespersons.

Yes, this is something I earlier hinted at.

Unless there is really compelling stuff that has not come forward, MS, the former comrade to many, is just that, a former comrade. By him going into areas of known verboten activities, by him putting his comrades at jeopardy, he has forfeited any claims he may have once had. Like I said, unless there is something immediately compelling that can be placed before the world community, the best we can do is boycott his future printed works and make statements condemning his verboten activities.

The said, MS will rub his publishing in our faces until such time as he is totally clean or totally discredited, with or without a commission. I think many people, myself included, gave him the benefit of the doubt, but his own explanation and weird intervals of punishing inter-racial photos, etc (s for show) have convinced some of us that something really sour happened to the milk.

The said, MS will rub his publishing in our faces until such time as he is totally clean or totally discredited, with or without a commission. I think many people, myself included, gave him the benefit of the doubt, but his own explanation and weird intervals of punishing inter-racial photos, etc (s for show) have convinced some of us that something really sour happened to the milk.

so what will we do about it? we need to go back to our networks at least and ask for fresh statements, denouncement of author and BF part 2.

One illustrative case of the confused ideology of the fascist creep is that of Michael Schmidt. A South African author and journalist who identifies as an Afrikaner anarchist, Schmidt focused his political work on class struggle for years, gaining a solid reputation (and publishing two widely read books through AK Press), despite increasing signs of racist, right-wing proclivities. He worked within the anarchist-communist tendency known as Platformism, which advocates for a more organized approach to revolutionary activity and “ideological unity” within anarchist groups trying to influence or build mass organizations that might usher in a new, revolutionary society. Unbeknownst to most people outside his Platformist group, however, Schmidt had promoted a division between middle-class (white) and poor (black) sections of the collective based on the understanding that black people lacked the cultural background to capably execute the rigorous intellectual demands of Platformism. In his words, black South Africans are “incapable of other than the basest service to the revolution.” Relegating poor, black workers to the frontlines while placing the middle-class whites on a perch of intellectual leadership transformed a political tendency constructed to ensure basic unity among all anarchist militants into one paradoxically deployed to actuate an intellectual hierarchy between blacks and whites.

In an interview, Schmidt told me, “As a white person living in Africa as a minority the bulk of which are working class (3.2-million out of 4.5-million), I taste a smack of genocide in the desire by race fanatics to destroy even cultural whiteness.” This open desire to protect white people from cultural genocide at the hands of the black majority was implicit in several of his articles, both mainstream and anarchist. A significant number of his articles for South African newspapers employ the idea of “black racism” or “Bantu racism” (similar to the idea of “reverse racism” or “anti-white racism” in the United States). He expands the concept to state and geopolitical levels, pointing to a “de facto racist strain within the ANC [African National Congress],” comparing the black-majority party’s exploits to the “expansionist mission” of Nazi Germany, and elsewhere raising the specter of white genocide at the hands of black “génocidaires” threatening both whites and lighter-skinned blacks. In other articles, he has expressed subtle sympathy for Afrikaner paramilitaries and fascists like the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging (AWB—Afrikaner Resistance Movement).

Against this looming threat of white genocide or “Boer genocide,” Schmidt publicly flirted with the notion of pan-secessionism—albeit with numerous caveats. In a newspaper article in support of pan-secessionism, for instance, Schmidt criticizes “extreme” secessionist tactics in some places—for instance, Somalia and the Balkans—while favoring movements in Western European countries like Scotland and Catalonia. He then turns his pen to South Africa, questioning whether a positive secessionist movement would be possible, or if it had already “died on the vine” due to the weakness of the Cape Party and the failure of the ultranationalist, Afrikaner radical right party Vryheidsfront Plus (VF+—Freedom Front Plus) to remain true to its stated goals.

In addition to his “legitimate” mainstream and anarchist publications, I discovered that Schmidt had an account on the white nationalist online community, Stormfront, and a secret national-anarchist and pan-secessionist blog called Black Battlefront, as well as at least two additional Facebook accounts under other names. These various personae voiced explicitly fascist versions of some of Schmidt’s more obliquely framed public positions. Collectively, they advocated a pan-secessionist, national-anarchist strategy by which white people would enter into a separatist party like the VF+ or the Cape Party in efforts to direct it to a national syndicalist state with a tacitly white nationalist order.

When I and coauthor Joshua Stephens exposed his duplicitous dealings, Schmidt claimed that he used Stormfront as an undercover journalist to research white nationalists, which he said could be confirmed by his former editor. I reached the editor, Brendan Seery, but Schmidt’s claim could not be corroborated. Instead, a horrified Seery stated that he would never have given Schmidt permission for such a research project, viewing it as unethical. “There’s absolutely no way I would have forgotten something like that,” Seery insisted. “I repeat: this was never discussed with me. It is not something I would have forgotten. I would like to think I am known for my ethical behavior as a journalist and I take ethics very seriously, as anyone who has worked under me will testify. I would never forget someone asking to put aside ethics in favour of a story.”

In reality, it was not incredibly shocking that Schmidt’s alibi failed, given his long list of questionable articles and his reputation among the people I interviewed who had spent time in the South African anarchist scene. In one article that he sent to me during our extensive interview—which was reportedly rejected by Anarkismo, a web site to which he regularly contributed—he quoted Julius Evola as a mere “conservative critic of fascism.” Other individuals we interviewed also revealed that Schmidt had attempted to influence his comrades through online pseudonyms and front groups touting his ideas, encouraging them to consider the merits of national-anarchism.

We discovered that Schmidt also posted under a pseudonym (his family name, Le Sueur) on Keith Preston’s forums. For his part, Preston positively featured “Le Sueur” in his book Attack the System, including Le Sueur’s lengthy critique of antifascist author Matthew Lyons. Attack the System also dedicates four pages to Schmidt’s non-pseudonymous public writings, including three pages of solid block quotes. At first, when confronted, Schmidt claimed that his false identities were in fact real people involved in a constellation of secretive intelligence agencies and private security companies with dangerous motives. Eventually, he admitted ownership of these false profiles and the front groups they had created. Yet he did not admit what an overwhelming burden of evidence indicated: that he used those profiles to attempt to lure other anarchists toward white nationalism while also deploying his Stormfront account to encourage white nationalists to organize in South Africa.

Despite these revelations, Schmidt continues to have supporters within left-wing groups, illustrating a dangerous tendency to put on sectarian blinders as fascism creeps into radical communities. More generally, Schmidt’s success in radical milieus until the exposure of his extracurricular activities illustrated the susceptibility of the radical left to closet authoritarians who use radical analysis as a bully pulpit. Strains of nationalism went largely unchallenged among his early supporters. There was no outcry among his comrades when he produced articles denying the fascist underpinnings of national-anarchism and expressed sympathy over the death of South African fascist Eugene Terre’Blanche and “our white farmers” in general. This is not due to a generally accepted fascism or authoritarianism underlying left-wing politics, but to the stealth with which fascists continue to adapt and cultivate ideological platforms parallel to and integrated with the left. Indeed, this practice is one of the basic aspects of fascism.

The questions raised by the author appear to reduce to one single fear: the question of power; that decentralising power allows for no comprehensive / universalist (totalitarian?) enforcement of social norms. And this is clearly what the author wishes: some universal enforcement mechanism that can punish communities for their “deviant” social choices. Surely that is true authoritarianism, writ large, compared with which the possibility of *some* communities choosing authoritarianism writ small is a much lesser threat to civilisation?

This includes a Facebook page called Black Battlefront, which is described as
"racially aware, anti-racist revolutionary cadre network of white African
politico-social soldiers defending our unique culture, under the anarchist black
flag".

The Black Battlefront says it staunchly opposes "Boer genocide" and works
for the establishment of white African base area in South Africa and Namibia, but
also elsewhere in Africa, "where we can live out our cultural prerogatives
unmolested by the black majority".

The comment titled "ZACF member original interview for commission" published under the name of "ZACF" was removed at the request of the comrade who wrote the text. He never gave permission for it to be posted publicly (although it would have been made available to the commission without whoever posted it at Anarkismo.net having done so without consulting the author), as it contains many personal and painful details about his life. Also, it was posted by someone misrepresenting themselves as the ZACF, and not by, or mandated by, the ZACF. These actions are abuses of the forum, and sadly, not new. Lastly, posting material that contains names, places and personal details could create a serious security risk for people in repressive environments.